R v Osman Omar Osman
[2023] EWCA Crim 1560
Victoria Goldsmith v R
12 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 780
Court of Appeal
A woman was unfit to stand trial for drug charges. The court decided the jury only needed to decide if she had the drugs, not if she planned to sell them. This is because the law separates the act of having drugs from the intention to sell them when someone can't stand trial. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Victoria Goldsmith was found unfit to plead due to schizoaffective disorder.
- •She was charged with possession with intent to supply crack cocaine under section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
- •A trial of fact under section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 proceeded.
- •The Recorder ruled that the jury only needed to consider whether Goldsmith possessed the cocaine, not her intent to supply.
- •The jury found Goldsmith had done the act charged (possession).
- •Goldsmith appealed, arguing the Recorder wrongly excluded the intent to supply from the jury's consideration.
Legal Principles
In a trial of fact under section 4A of the 1964 Act, the jury considers only whether the defendant did the act charged, not necessarily the mens rea.
R v Attorney General’s Reference (No.3 of 1988) [2000] QB 401; R v Antoine [2001] AC 340; R v Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611
The 'act' in section 4A(3) may include mental elements depending on the offence. Analysis of the offence's gravamen is necessary to determine which elements constitute 'the act'.
R v MB [2012] 3 All ER 1093; R (Young) v Central Criminal Court [2002] EWHC 548 (Admin); R v Wells & Others [2015] EWCA Crim 2
A state of mind not directly linked to the outward act doesn't form part of 'the act' under section 4A.
R v MB [2012] 3 All ER 1093
Section 4A hearings are not criminal trials to determine guilt; they determine if the defendant did the act, justifying any liberty restrictions.
R v Wells & Others [2015] EWCA Crim 2
For possession with intent to supply (section 5(3) of the 1971 Act), intent is the mens rea, not part of the actus reus (possession) for section 4A purposes.
R v Maginnis [1987] AC 303
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court held that the intent to supply was the mens rea, separate from the actus reus of possession. Only the act of possession needed to be considered by the jury under section 4A. The Recorder's direction was correct.